Hi, SM...
If I am not mistaken implementers are encouraged to request IETF protocol
parameters assignments before deploying them at internet scale. In my
opinion an IESG assessment would be useful as the IESG is chartering a
working group about DMARC. I am taking a previous (IESG) conflict review
into consideration (conflict-review-masotta-tftpexts-windowsize-opt).
I don't se how that conflict review has anything to do with this at
all. That conflict review response was about congestion issues that
might be caused by the protocol itself, and had nothing to do with any
protocol parameter assignments.
In my opinion the existing specification cannot be published through the
Independent Stream because of the IANA Considerations section, i.e. it has
to be sent to the IESG. The Application Area Directors will have to decide
what to do about the "Email Authentication Parameters" assignments as
conflict of interest can be raised as an issue.
The IANA Considerations section requests assignments into two "Expert
Required" registries and one "Specification Required" registry. Those
registration policies exist *specifically* to allow registrations from
non-IETF documents, and they've been used many times for that. The
DMARC base document certainly doesn't have to be sent to the IESG for
*that* reason.
As to the conflict of interest with respect to the designated experts,
1. I already plan to ask a stand-in reviewer, who does not have a
conflict, to serve as an expert for this document,
2. the IESG has already discussed that point informally, and thinks
that's a fine thing for cases such as this, where all the DEs are
closely involved with the document that's requesting registration, and
3. I've put text into the 5226bis proposal (which should be going into
last call any time now) to deal with this situation.
See <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis/>,
the penultimate paragraph of Section 5.2.
Do you really think we're not on top of a situation such as this?
The (proposed) working group reviews the DMARC
specification and finds out that the assignments have not been done.
Why would that happen? If it does, that'd be due to a problem between
IANA and the ISE, and such a problem hasn't happened yet.
Process issues could be raised; I am not inferring that it is bad. This is
where one looks into whether there has been any arbitrary decision.
What appears arbitrary to you?
"Protocol parameter assignments" is about IETF policy; it is not DMARC
specific. It is related to the discussion on an IAB mailing list. It can
impact on future IESG decisions.
What, exactly has that impact? And what does this have to do with the IAB?
Barry, Applications AD